The much-anticipated Ontario Power Authority (OPA)'s
recommendations for how the province will meet its energy needs in the future
is finally out. Since this is the holiday season, the Liberals have followed
the tradition of releasing controversial reports to the paying public close to
Christmas.

With 25,000 MW of the province's peak capacity of 32,000 MW
targeted for phase-out, burn-out or shut-down over the next 20 to 30
years,the report is recommending
a $ 35 billion investment in new nuclear power plants. Depending on your
perspective, this news is either naughty or nice.

Municipal officials in the Clarington area (home of the
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station) will no doubt consider the expansion of
nuclear a nice bit of holiday cheer. Clarington Council is still smarting after
losing its bid to host the controversial $ 18 billion International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project. To help ensure that it
doesn't miss the nuclear gravy train this time, Clarington Council formally announced
that the municipality ~ or at least council members ~ would be a willing host
to Darlington B, two new 700 MW reactors adjacent to the existing plant. Hot on
their heels, Durham Regional Council passed a unanimous resolution also
welcoming a new Darlington plant.

For those who would prefer to not fall back into a system
reliant on nuclear power, the news is both naughty and unnecessary. According
to a new report released last week by the Pembina Institute and the Canadian
Environmental Law Association (CELA), by failing to aggressively work toward
improving energy efficiency in the province, the government is placing
Ontario's environment and economic prosperity at serious risk.

"Towards a Sustainable Electricity System for Ontario?
A Provincial Progress Report", evaluates Ontario's progress in three key
areas ~ energy efficiency, renewable energy supply and replacing coal-fire
generation ~ and finds the province's efforts wanting.Despite the appointment of Ontario's
first Chief Energy Conservation Officer, one only needs to follow the money to
see that the province doesn't have the courage of its so-called conservation
convictions.

"The province has committed $10.5 billion on
electricity supply compared to approximately $163 million on conservation and
demand management ~ a ratio of commitments of 64:1," said Mark Winfield,
Ph.D., Director Environmental Governance for The Pembina Institute. Despite all
the hype about conservation, clearly the province is paying lip service to the
idea of fully integrating conservation as a reliable part of its energy mix.

"Other
jurisdictions have demonstrated major reductions in demand as a result of
aggressive efficiency programs," said Winfield. "California and
Vermont have stopped load growth by investing in conservation programs."
By some estimates, these programs have been so successful that they may soon
start replacing existing generation.

These programs worked because they were legislated, not
because politicians said that conservation was a good idea. In Vermont's case,
Efficiency Vermont was mandated by government order, much like Ontario will
mandate what our future energy mix will be.

According to Pembina and CELA, that mix doesn't have to
include coal or nuclear. In their joint 2004 report, "Power for the
Future", Pembina/CELA estimated that aggressive conservation efforts
combined with rapid but feasible investments in renewable energy would make the
phase-out of coal and nuclear feasible.These are very smart people who have dedicated their professional lives
to sustainable, innovative solutions. So why isn't our government paying
attention?

Sadly, this would take some vision and a whole lot of
courage, because being a visionary isn't necessarily politically expedient.
What is expedient is the same old solutions which will pretty much leave us
where we already are: seriously in debt and heavily invested in large scale,
centralized generation, forced into a never ending cycle of selling electricity
~ rather than the services that electricity provides ~ so we can to pay off
that large scale debt.

Courage and vision are qualities that seem destined to be
mutually exclusive of being elected to make these decisions. We have great
examples of how we can create a sustainable energy future. It's up to us to
demand that our leaders do what's right, rather than what's politically
expedient.